Theorist shamers should be ashamed of themselves.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Bill Brown writes:

Quote

I consider many of Sandy Larsen's posts to be of the "far-fetched" variety.

I also consider Sandy Larsen to be a fair Moderator.

Jeremy, one can't possess both characteristics?

Of course! And I have no reason to suppose that Sandy's actions against Miles, Jonathan and Pat were motivated by his disagreements with those members.

Caesar's wife comes to mind. A moderator must not only act fairly; he or she must be seen to act fairly. A moderator who actively promotes far-fetched beliefs will inevitably generate suspicion whenever he uses his moderator's powers against those who disagree with him.

If people suspect, rightly or wrongly, that they won't get a fair deal on this forum, they are unlikely to hang around or even join in the first place. Hence the paucity here of lone-nutters and non-paranoid conspiracy theorists. I'm aware of several ex-members who questioned one or more far-fetched theories and were either banned or left of their own accord as a result.

It's good that Sandy devotes time to the administration of this forum. The Watercoolers feature, which I assume Sandy had a hand in creating, was an effective way of defusing partisan political disagreements that had nothing to do with the JFK assassination.

But the power to suspend or ban members should not be in the hands of people who actively promote far-fetched or otherwise divisive beliefs, because at some point those people will act against members who disagree with them, and suspicion will be generated. Personally, I think the panel of moderators should be entirely (or, at worst, largely) comprised of people who do not actively promote such beliefs. Whether enough suitable members can be found is another matter.

[Sandy Larsen]

41 minutes ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Of course! And I have no reason to suppose that Sandy's actions against Miles, Jonathan and Pat were motivated by his disagreements with those members.

 

I've never taken an action against Miles.

I've never taken an action against Pat. (He did break a forum rule. So I asked him to remove it, something that any member can do. And he removed it.)

All the moderators have penalized Jonathan. For good reason.

 

41 minutes ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

But the power to suspend or ban members should not be in the hands of people who actively promote far-fetched or otherwise divisive beliefs...

 

By your own logic, no CTer should be a moderator. Because to WC apologists, all CTers promote far-fetched beliefs.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

 

 

You were penalized  for the following statement you made in this post:

Oswald and his mother were part of a long-term double-doppelgänger scheme. ...
'Crackpot' is an appropriate word for anyone who publicly promoted such nonsense.

This is a forum violation. A current forum member publicly promotes the H&L theory that you are referring to.

 

[Jonathan Cohen]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Because to WC apologists, all CTers promote far-fetched beliefs.

A preposterous, sweeping generality which pretends the "Harvey and Lee" theory is not widely derided by the most serious and respected researchers in the case -- which it most certainly is.

[Jim Hargrove]

What a broken record.

Here is the list I’ve compiled so far of 15 researchers who have publicly endorsed a long-term two-Oswald analysis:

John Armstrong, Rob Reiner, James Norwood, Sandy Larsen, John Newman, Peter Dale Scott, Joseph McBride, Dick Russell, Jack White, Pat Shannan, George Schwimmer, David Mantik, David Josephs,  Robert Groden & me.

Of course, Jonathan will tell us that he knows more than all the above researchers.

[Jonathan Cohen]

18 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

What a broken record.

Here is the list I’ve compiled so far of 15 researchers who have publicly endorsed a long-term two-Oswald analysis:

John Armstrong, Rob Reiner, James Norwood, Sandy Larsen, John Newman, Peter Dale Scott, Joseph McBride, Dick Russell, Jack White, Pat Shannan, George Schwimmer, David Mantik, David Josephs,  Robert Groden & me.

Of course, Jonathan will tell us that he knows more than all the above researchers.

Has John Newman made such a statement more recently than 1994? I'd love to see it, if so. Robert Groden includes fake autopsy photos in his books and passes them off as real. Jack White claimed the Moon landings were faked and that no planes hit the World Trade Center. Rob Reiner aired blatant falsehoods in his podcast. These are the people you really want to use to prop up the most idiotic Kennedy assassination theory of all time? Even David Lifton, of "the body was altered" fame, rejected it. Jefferson Morley rejects it. Walt Brown rejects it. Barry Ernest rejects it. Josiah Thompson rejects it. Bart Kamp and Greg Parker reject it. On balance, an overwhelming majority of the most serious and respected researchers in this case rightfully think "Harvey and Lee" is a joke.

[Pat Speer]

40 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

What a broken record.

Here is the list I’ve compiled so far of 15 researchers who have publicly endorsed a long-term two-Oswald analysis:

John Armstrong, Rob Reiner, James Norwood, Sandy Larsen, John Newman, Peter Dale Scott, Joseph McBride, Dick Russell, Jack White, Pat Shannan, George Schwimmer, David Mantik, David Josephs,  Robert Groden & me.

Of course, Jonathan will tell us that he knows more than all the above researchers.

You probably have more insight into this, but it is my understanding that men like Newman, Scott, and Blunt were intrigued by the possibility of Oswald's being impersonated, and supported the assembling of the material used by Armstrong, but were dismayed by the way Armstrong put the evidence together.

So, to them, the work put into Harvey and Lee was not a joke. But they were not supporters of the finished product. Is this correct? 

[Jim Hargrove]

I'm not sure about Malcolm Blunt, Pat, though I know he and John A. spent considerable time together going through documents and evidence items at NARA.  I haven't put Malcolm on the list, though, because I'm not sure where he stands on this.

At the San Francisco spy conference, John Newman and Peter Dale Scott spoke as if they were entirely open to the the long-term existence of two Oswalds, though their take on the matter seemed somewhat different than John's.  Whenever I mention all 15 researchers, I try to be careful to describe it as "two long term LHOs" or something similar, specifically thinking of Messrs. Newman and Scott.  The other 13 critics, however, are entirely supportive of the "Harvey and Lee" analysis, I'm quite certain. There are several others I'm considering adding to the list.

[Sandy Larsen]

14 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

17 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Because to WC apologists, all CTers promote far-fetched beliefs.

14 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

A preposterous, sweeping generality which pretends the "Harvey and Lee" theory is not widely derided by the most serious and respected researchers in the case -- which it most certainly is.

 

Jonathan,

My post that you responded to had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with the H&L theory.

Kindly remove your post accordingly. If you don't, I will report it as an incident of harassment.

 

[Jonathan Cohen]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

My post that you responded to had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with the H&L theory.

You said: "Because to WC apologists, all CTers promote far-fetched beliefs." Before we go further, let's be clear: Is that actually your belief? Or rather, were you just mocking Jeremy's comment about moderators?

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Jim Hargrove writes:

Quote

John Newman and Peter Dale Scott spoke as if they were entirely open to the the long-term existence of two Oswalds, though their take on the matter seemed somewhat different than John[ Armstrong]'s.

In other words, Newman and Scott don't subscribe to the central features of the 'Harvey and Lee' nonsense, the claim that the CIA set up a scheme in which:

• Two unrelated boys were recruited at a young age in the hope that when they grew up they would turn out to be so close in appearance that they would be mistaken for each other.
• The mother of one of the boys and an unrelated woman, were also recruited, and that the two women were so close in appearance that they would be mistaken for each other.
• One of the Oswald doppelgängers was recruited specifically for his knowledge of Russian, only for him to be allowed to forget so much of his Russian that he had to learn the language again, thereby defeating the whole point of recruiting him in the first place.
• One of the Oswald doppelgängers and one of the mother doppelgängers disappeared from the face of the earth immediately after the murder of the real, one-and-only Oswald by Jack Ruby, with no explanation of where they went or how their disappearance came about.

This claim is preposterous, and is supported by no direct evidence. There appear to be no memos, progress reports, financial records, or any other documentation referring to such a scheme.

I'd be extremely surprised (and disappointed) if Newman or Scott take this preposterous claim seriously. Do Newman and Scott really believe that Oswald and his mother were part of a long-term double-doppelgänger scheme that began when Oswald was a boy? If they don't, Jim really should stop citing them as supporters of he 'Harvey and Lee' nonsense.

As Jonathan points out, the central claims of he 'Harvey and Lee' nonsense are believed by almost no-one who treats the JFK assassination as a serious historical event. That's because it is just the lone-nut narrative dressed up in a tin-foil hat.

[Jim Hargrove]

But Messrs. Newman and Scott are clearly open to the concept of two men sharing the identity of Lee Harvey Oswald for years, as evidenced by their conversation in a San Francisco conference a few years ago.  I’ll be happy to post the dialog again if anyone missed it.

In several places in Into the Nightmare, well-known author Joseph McBride endorses “Harvey and Lee.” Here’s an example that appears in Chapter 4:

Only those deep within the government would have fully understood in 1963 that ‘Oswald’ was really two people, both simultaneously using the identities of Lee Harvey Oswald or Harvey Lee Oswald, as John Armstrong conclusively proves with a wealth of hard factual evidence in his massive 2003 study ‘Harvey and Lee’.’

Dick Russell, who wrote The Man Who Knew Too Much, supports Harvey and Lee so much that he organized a meeting with the famous director Rob Reiner and drove John and me to Rob’s house, where we all remained for the nearly 8 hour meeting.

Again, here is the list I’ve compiled so far of 15 researchers who have publicly endorsed a long-term two-Oswald analysis:

John Armstrong, Rob Reiner, James Norwood, Sandy Larsen, John Newman, Peter Dale Scott, Joseph McBride, Dick Russell, Jack White, Pat Shannan, George Schwimmer, David Mantik, David Josephs,  Robert Groden & me.

Two YouTube movies by “MrChrillemannen,”presenting John Armstrong interviews with accompanying graphics, have been viewed more than 700,000 times!

Captain Westbrook, officer Tippit and Oswald's double

and

Who impersonated Lee Harvey Oswald?

John’s work has spawned, not counting “The Other Oswald,” which is somewhat different, at least four different books in recent years.

The JFK Assassination and the Uncensored Story of the Two Oswalds

From an Amazon review: “I'd read a good chunk of Armstrong's Harvey and Lee, but Shannan provided clarity for me on the matter of Marguerite Oswald in particular and the whole thesis in general. So much easier to read this digest than the master's unedited tome.”

DOPPELGANGER: The Legend of Lee Harvey Oswald

Dr. Schwimmer’s best-seller is already in it’s fifth edition.

From the publisher’s blurb: “More than 300 sources, including many sworn testimonies & affidavits, were consulted, as well as John Armstrong’s massive research project HARVEY AND LEE. One fact led to another, until a coherent picture began to emerge from the immense pile of puzzle pieces…. That picture includes the background of Harvey as a juvenile immigrant fluent in Russian, and the creation of the second ‘Lee Harvey Oswald’ and the second ‘Marguerite Oswald.’ The picture continues with the recruitment of both Lee Oswald and Harvey Oswald by the ONI and the CIA, followed by Harvey’s assumption of Lee’s identity, his ‘defection’ to Russia, and Lee’s involvement with the Cuban revolution and the CIA..…”

Mistaken Identity

From the publisher’s blurb:  "New forensic and evidentiary material not published, proves that two individuals known as "Lee Harvey Oswald" enlisted in the U.S. Marines in 1956 using the same birth certificate. Recent genealogical research identifies them as second cousins through intermarriage of second-generation French families in New Orleans. It created a nightmare of identity for the FBI."

 

A fourth major book including much information on the two Oswald's was just published by our forum's own Dr. James Norwood.  It is entitled, FORMER PEOPLE: John F. Kennedy, Nikita Khruschev, and Lee Harvey Oswald at a Crossroads in History. The last chapter, the longest in the book, is called "Turning Points in Understanding a Former Person: The Two Oswalds."

And yet a few people here claim no one believes Harvey and Lee? 

[Sandy Larsen]

16 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Jonathan,

My post that you responded to had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with the H&L theory.

Kindly remove your post accordingly. If you don't, I will report it as an incident of harassment.

 

I asked Jonathan to remove a post violating a forum rule. He didn't. So I have issued him twice the number of penalty points for that given violation.

Any member has the right to ask another member to removed a comment that violates a forum rule. The person will get twice the number of penalty points if they don't. (Of course, if the comment does not violate a forum rule, no penalty points will be issued.

 

[Robert Morrow]

I find the theory of two Oswalds pushed by John Armstrong to be complete garbage which does not mean I do not think Armstrong is smart or that there are not valuable nuggets in his book Harvey and Lee.

[Ron Bulman]

Well, at some point it seems someone was impersonating LHO.  Mexico seems pretty convincing.  As does Dallas.  The rest I won't argue about.  I've not read H & L.  It does seem there were two of them in the Texas Theater.